Correlation of Cephalometric Analyses With Clinical Impression in Orthognathic Surgery Patients: Harvold and Steiner...

A variety of linear (Harvold) and angular (Steiner) cephalometric analyses are used to identify the skeletal basis for a malocclusion; there is no universally accepted standard. The purpose of this study was to compare the concordance of Harvold and Steiner analyses with the clinicians' impression of maxillary and mandibular jaw position.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2012 through 2016. Patients were included if they had symmetrical deformities not related to trauma, clefts, or syndromes; complete records; and a clinical diagnosis documented at initial consultation. The predictor variables were Harvold- and Steiner-derived diagnoses of jaw position (hypoplasia, neutral, or hyperplasia). The outcome variables were maxillary and mandibular clinical impressions (hypoplasia, neutral, or hyperplasia). The concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value relative to clinical diagnoses were calculated.

During the study period 388 patients had orthognathic surgery and 222(112 females, mean age 26.4±9.9 years) met the inclusion criteria. Harvold and Steiner analyses were 82% and 33% concordant with the maxillary clinical impression, respectively (P < .001), and 62% and 52% concordant with the mandibular clinical impression, respectively (P = .044). Steiner analysis had greater concordance in females (P < .001). For maxillary hypoplasia, the maxillary unit length had a sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 36%, and PPV of 92% and the sell-nasion-A (SNA) point had 28%, 84%, and 93%, respectively. For mandibular hypoplasia, the mandibular unit length had a sensitivity of 52%, specificity of 96%, and PPV of 94% and the sell-nasion-B (SNB) point had 52%, 98%, and 97%, respectively. For mandibular hyperplasia, the mandibular unit length had a sensitivity of 46%, specificity of 93%, and PPV of 40% and the SNB point had 73%, 73%, and 23%, respectively.

Harvold analysis was significantly more consistent with the clinical impression of the maxillary and mandibular sagittal position than Steiner analysis. Both analyses were highly specific and had high PPVs to confirm the clinical impression. Clinicians should consider incorporating Harvold analysis during treatment planning for orthognathic surgery.